Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > East Lothian Council > LA/EL/169

Complaint number LA/EL/169 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Charles Ingle of East Lothian Council

1. Complaint number LA/EL/169 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ('the Code') by Councillor Charles Ingle ('the respondent').

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular the provisions on Confidentiality set out in paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 of the Code.

3. The person complaining ('the complainant') alleged that having received information from the Council in response to an enquiry which he had made about the allocation of local authority housing, the respondent released that information to the press and thus compromised the confidential nature of the information which he had been given.

4. The respondent had been approached by a constituent concerning to the granting of the tenancy of a local authority flat in Haddington, East Lothian. Essentially these concerns were to the effect that a single person had been allocated a two-bedroom property to which she was not entitled.

5. In July 2004 the respondent spoke to the Council's Director of Community Services regarding the concerns about the allocation of the flat. The matter was then referred to the Head of Community Housing and Property Management.

6. In November 2004 the Head of Community Housing and Property Management informed the respondent by letter that anomalies in connection with the allocation of the flat were the subject of an internal investigation. The letter was not marked as being confidential. Moreover, there was no indication given in the letter itself that it contained personal information which should not be available to third parties.

7. The respondent was aware that an internal audit investigation was taking place in regard to the matter, but elected to contact a newspaper reporter. The respondent discussed his concerns about the allocation of housing and produced the letter which contained sufficient information to allow the reporter to identify the property concerned. An article was published together with a photograph of the block in which the flat was situated.

8. The occupant of the flat terminated the tenancy of the flat shortly afterwards, citing concerns over the publicity as the primary factor influencing the decision to leave.

9. The key questions were (i) was there confidential or exempt information involved (ii) if so, was there an obligation to keep it private (iii) if so, was such an obligation - in all the circumstances - reasonable and necessary having regard to the freedom of expression set out in article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights?

10. In this particular case a member of the public - one of the respondent's constituents - had concerns regarding the entitlement to the tenancy of the flat. The concerns about the tenancy were effectively in the public domain. Furthermore, the respondent's offer to share the concerns regarding the propriety of the allocation of the flat was not motivated by any personal or party political interests.

11. Indeed, some 6 months after reporting the matter there had been limited progress in investigating his complaint, although the respondent had received information from the housing service and internal audit in November 2004 and January 2005. As he was dissatisfied with progress, he decided to pass on the substance of his concerns to the local press.

12. The Edinburgh Evening News and the East Lothian Courier both printed fair and balanced accounts of the background to the concerns. In so doing, they provided information about the allocation having been potentially in breach of housing policy. They did not however give the name or exact address (only the road and, in one case, the house block) of the tenant although I consider that the respondent did provide sufficient information to the newspaper from which the name and address of the tenant could have been identified. That information was publicly available; as was the fact that a member of the public had concerns about the allocation.

13. The newspapers also reported that the respondent had received a letter from the Head of Community Housing and Property Management advising that anomalies in the allocation had been identified and referred for further investigation. That information was not issued on a confidential basis to the respondent and could not therefore be regarded as confidential information for the purpose of the Code of Conduct. Even if the letter had been sent on a confidential basis, it is likely that the Council - following a press enquiry whether concerns about a specific tenancy had been submitted and whether these concerns were being investigated - would have replied in a positive and reasonably informative (albeit possibly guarded) way.

14. Having reached the view that confidential or exempt information was not involved, it was unnecessary for me to deal with the other questions (ii) and (iii) set out in paragraph 9 above. It does have to be observed however that even in cases where information can be properly categorized as confidential any restrictions limiting publication fall to be reasonably interpreted and applied only where it is necessary in the public interest to do so. In this case the respondent had raised concerns in good faith and with some apparent justification which, at the time of writing, have still not finally been resolved.

15. This case highlighted the importance of being clear as to what can properly be identified as confidential or exempt information and, where such information is made available to councillors, what restrictions as to its wider dissemination or publication are then placed on councillors. It was suggested that East Lothian Council might consider reviewing current procedures and guidance to councillors in this connection.

16. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Charles Ingle had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
14 November 2005